首先是桑德伯格，她回避了选择上市承销商的流程，给出的理由是她在谷歌（GOOG）时期就结识了某些银行家。算我多嘴，但这种关系不是很重要吗？并不需要她去招揽银行为Facebook服务：每家银行都梦想Facebook成为其客户，只是因为她可能更了解哪家银行最合适做承销商。而一旦Facebook确实挑选了她来自摩根士丹利的老相识迈克尔•格兰姆斯，难道讨论时有来自她的第三种观点不会更好吗？特别是她和双方关键人物的关系都如此密切。

    然后是埃博斯曼，据称他主管的财务部门曾警告来自承销商的分析师，将下调二季度预期，而其他分析师并未得到警告。如果传言属实，他的行为可能已经触犯了证券监管法律，这也意味着他可能失去工作，更别说薪酬计划里的未分配股票了。

    当然，最终的责任还是要由扎克伯格来承担，毕竟他才是公司的首席执行官。但他现在肯定在反思，是否太轻信他人。不单是他任命的公司负责人，也包括那些从一开始就鼓噪说他需要监护人的家伙。

    First there's Sandberg, who apparently recused herself from the underwriter selection process, apparently because she had existing relationships with certain bankers from her time with Google (GOOG). Pardon me, but wouldn't such relationships actually have been important? Not to get bankers to take on Facebook as a client -- everyone wanted them -- but because she might have a better sense of who would, and wouldn't, be the best fit? And, once Facebook did pick her pal Michael Grimes over at Morgan Stanley (MS), wouldn't it have been good to have a third opinion in the room -- particularly one so close to both key players?

    Then there is Ebersman, who oversees a financial operation that allegedly warned underwriter analysts -- but not others -- to cut Q2 guidance estimates. If true, what he did may actually have violated securities regulations -- and also means he shouldn't be too quick to count his unvested shares.

    To be sure, the buck ultimately stops with Zuckerberg, because he is Facebook's CEO. But today he's got to be wondering if he was too trusting. Not only of those he put in charge, but of those who told him he needed adult supervision in the first place.